EAT Decision: Unfair Dismissal and Sex Discrimination

Mrs Howard brought an unfair dismissal and sex discrimination claim against the National Orthopaedic Hospital, which had employed her for 18 years. The claims were compromised in a COT3 agreement in 1998, which compromised "these proceedings and all claims which the Applicant has or may have against the Respondent."

Two years later, in 2000, she was asked by a surgeon to assist at an operation for one day but the hospital refused to authorise a temporary appointment - she said, because of her previous sex discrimination claim.  She therefore brought a claim for victimisation.

The EAT upheld the Employment Tribunal's decision that the compromise agreement did not prevent her from bringing the later claim of victimisation. Although it was open to parties to contract away future causes of action which had not yet arisen, an objective construction of the words used in the COT3 did not lend itself to that interpretation. Accordingly she could proceed with the victimisation claim.
This document is for general guidance and research purposes only, and does not purport to give professional advice. Please check the date at the top of the article; the Workplace Law Network retains historic articles for general research.